51ÁÔÆæ

UNAT noted that only circumstances beyond an applicant¡¯s control that prevented them from timely exercising the right of appeal may be considered ¡°exceptional circumstances,¡± justifying a waiver of the statutory time limit. UNAT noted that an applicant¡¯s initial mistaken belief that decisions were lawful cannot be deemed to constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to appeal those decisions, especially when they had every means of obtaining information from the Administration. UNAT was not persuaded by the Appellant¡¯s arguments upon appeal and did not find any...

UNAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and M Akyeampong on the issue of whether Ms Akyeampong could be denied a promotion on account of the two reprimands. UNAT held that the two reprimands had not been an obstacle to Ms Akyeampong filling a D-1 position or being recommended for a promotion. Moreover, UNAT held that the presence of the two reprimands had not debarred her from being promoted during the 2009 annual promotion session. UNAT allowed Ms Akyeampong¡¯s appeal in part, rescinded the impugned decision and dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, with Judge Weinberg de...

UNAT considered Mr Al Sayyed¡¯s appeal and found that the decision to terminate his service, effective from close of business 15 December 2007, and as communicated to him on 30 November 2007, was superseded by the action he took on 4 December 2007, an action reinforced by him on 7 January 2008. Under these circumstances, UNAT held that UNRWA did not err in dismissing Mr Al Sayyed¡¯s appeal against his termination on the basis that there was no termination decision capable of review. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

UNAT considered Mr Kamynyi¡¯s appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. UNAT rejected Mr Kamunyi¡¯s appeal in its entirety and held that it is within the Administration¡¯s discretion to reassign a staff member to a different post at the same level and that such a reassignment is lawful if it is reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case and if it causes no economic prejudice to the staff member. UNAT held that UNDT rightfully rejected Mr Kamunyi¡¯s request for legal costs, noting that no legal costs were owed to a party when the opposing party had not abused the process. With...

UNAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. UNAT noted that the established facts showed that the Appellant¡¯s negligence as Head Storekeeper facilitated the misconduct of other staff members and his negligence was evidenced by the excess of merchandise in the storeroom under his control, and by his failure to keep an inventory of the items in his custody. UNAT held that the Appellant neither successfully rebutted these facts, nor demonstrated any flaws in the administrative and disciplinary procedures. UNAT held that the sanction of demotion was lawful. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was submitted to UNDT after the expiration of the response period; the response period began on the date on which she received a letter from the Management Evaluation Unit informing her that her request for a management evaluation was not receivable because, as a judge, she was not a staff member or a former staff member within the meaning of the Staff Rules. UNAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims that the UNDT judge erred on a question of fact, by considering the letter as the decision that concluded the management evaluation, and that it erred on a...

UNAT held that the Appellant had neither standing to challenge a decision which he alleged did not comply with the stipulations of his service contract nor the right to request the implementation of an arbitration procedure before UNDT. However, UNAT held that UNDT had committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had manifestly abused the process. The appeal was partially upheld and the UNDT judgment partially vacated regarding the payment of USD 500.00 for abuse of procedure.

UNAT considered Mr Elguindi, Ms Onogi and Ms Sheryda¡¯s separate appeals. With respect to Mr Elguindi¡¯s claim, UNAT did not find that the manner in which UNJSPF apportioned his monthly pension sum to be unreasonable, capricious or an abuse of discretion. With respect to Ms Onogi¡¯s claim of procedural defects, UNAT was not persuaded that there were procedural flaws on the part of UNJSPF such as to render the exercise of its discretion unreasonable or unlawful. UNAT also did not find merit in Mr Elguindi¡¯s claim of ¡°double-dipping¡± in his opposition to Ms Onogi¡¯s claim for relief from UNJSPF...

The Applicant submitted that she has a legitimate expectation of renewal and that the decision not to renew her contract was motivated by extraneous considerations. The Respondent submitted that the decision was taken as a result of UNMIT¡¯s downsizing in view of its eventual closure. The UNDT found that the requirement of urgency was satisfied. The UNDT found that the requirement of prima facie unlawfulness was also satisfied as the reason provided by the Respondent in support of the contested decision appeared to be unsupported by the facts and the documents in this case. The UNDT also found...

Outcome: The application was rejected. The UNDT made the following findings: The preliminary fact-finding investigation was initiated properly, but was flawed, because the Applicant was not re-interviewed or given the opportunity to answer the allegations of sexual harassment in writing after the full scope of allegations became known to the investigation panel. However, these flaws did not vitiate the contested decision as they were cured in the process that followed. The findings of the fact-finding investigation report and the accompanying documents justified the decision to initiate formal...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner¡¯s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of UNHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that UNHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner¡¯s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of UNHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that UNHCR did...

The Tribunal found that the contested requirement was not inconsistent with the intent of the General Assembly in its resolutions 37/126 and 51/226 and that it fell within the High Commissioner¡¯s discretion to introduce this requirement in view of UNHCR operational realities. Whereas exceptions were made to the contested requirement for medical reasons based on the provisions of the Procedural guidelines for appointments, postings and promotions, the Applicants were not in the same situation as the staff members who were granted such exceptions and therefore they cannot claim that UNHCR did...

Outcome: Judgment for the Applicant. The parties were ordered to attempt to resolve the issue of appropriate relief, failing which it would be considered by the UNDT. The UNDT found that the requirement to take a break in service was unlawful and did not reflect the true facts as no actual break in service or separation took place. The UNDT found that there was no legal requirement for the Applicant to be placed on appointment of limited duration between 5 and 30 June 2009, and the decision to give her an appointment of limited duration was manifestly unreasonable and therefore unlawful. The...

Outcome: The application was rejected. The UNDT found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the implementation of the contested decision would cause her irreparable damage.

Starting date of the 90-day time limit to file an application: The UNDT Statute, which prevails in case of contradiction with the Staff Rules as it is superior in the hierarchy of norms, prescribes that an application before the Tribunal must be filed within 90 days following receipt of the Administration¡¯s response to the request for management evaluation or, if the Administration has not replied to such request, following the expiry of the relevant response period for the management evaluation. If the Administration replies after the response period for the management evaluation but before...

Effect of reversal of decision on compensation: Because the contested decision was reversed by the Administration does not necessarily mean that the applicant is not entitled to claim compensation for the damage s/he may have suffered as a result of the unlawful decision. In a case where the Administration reversed the contested decision at the management evaluation stage, if an applicant can prove that s/he still sustains or sustained an injury resulting from the unlawful decision despite the rescission of the same, s/he has grounds for claiming compensation.Outcome:

On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, having considered the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that everything pointed to a suspect reason for the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract. The Respondent did not give a clear reason for non-renewal, even after the Applicant specifically requested for it. The Tribunal, thus concluded that the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s contract was prima facie unlawful. With regard to particular urgency, the Tribunal found that this requirement was clearly met since the Applicant¡¯s contract was to expire on 29 February 2012. The Applicant had...

When the Tribunal is requested to exercise its jurisdiction under articles 2.1(c) and 8.2 of its Statute, the Tribunal¡¯s competence is limited to verifying whether the agreement reached through mediation has been implemented.Outcome:

The Applicant received notification in writing on 30 September 2002 that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed after its expiry on 31 December 2002. The Applicant should therefore have requested a management evaluation by 30 November 2002. The Applicant did not do so. The Applicant, however, requested a management evaluation on 23 October 2009, over seven-and-a-half years after receiving the administrative decision that his fixed-term contract would not be renewed beyond its expiry date. The Tribunal has held that it does not have the power to suspend or waive the deadlines for...